The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1887-07-07
Gunson versus George.

Prof. Gunton in a recent lecture De-
fore the Packard Business College, of
New York City, made the following re-
ply to some of Henry Georges land
theories.
Mr.. Gunton first took up Henry
Georges proposition that poverty is in
creasing with the increase of product
i've power. He showed from statistics
and historical data that it was not true
either that poverty had increased with
the increase of productive power or
that rent had absorbed an increasing
proportion of the gain of civilization.
He cited facts to show that though
rent had actually increased it had re-
latively to the wealth produced de-
creased cOntinuously,-tba during the
last $50 years it had, in fact; decreased
fully so per cent, that prices had fallen
during the same time from so to so per
cent, and that wages had risen nearly
100 per cent. He next combated the
statement that there is no power on
earth which can rightfully make a
grant of exclusive ownership in land.
If there can be no exclusive ownership,
the United States cannot Eave excluS-
i've ownership of its territory. If the
United States has a right to own its
territory as against other nations, then
has not for the same reason New York
State right to own land as against
the United States, or New York City
as against New York State; and if SO
why not an individual as against New
York City? (Applause.) In other
words whatever principle will give the
fifty millions of people in this country
the right to own land will give ten mil
lion or one million or one person that
right. (Applause.) In short, there is
no such thing as absolute ownership.
In society everything is conditional.
thing must be done in harmony with
the good of the whole, and therefore
the question of land ownership is not a
question of absolute right, but ques-
tiOn of social eXpediency. The princi-
pie of taking unearned increments on
land would simply be taking the profits
of business.
Poverty, continued Mr.. Gunton, can
only be abolished by increasing wealth.
1t can never be abolished by mere re-
distribution, because there is not
wealth enough in the community, how
ever distributed, to make any import
ant reduction in poverty. Wealth can
only be increased as the methods OF
producing are improved. Improved
methods of producing, such as ma
chinery, and ETC., can only be employed
in proportion as capital is concentrate
ed, and therefore instead of abOlishin9
the concentration of capital in large
corporations, it is only by that means
that increased production of wealth
can be accomplished. In proportion as
large concerns Supplant small ones
and large firms supplant small firms
| everything that is produced is prOduc-
ed cheaper and more abundantly. In
the manufacture of cotton cloth in 1881
it took four cents on every pound OF
| cotton cloth produced to give the cap
italist who had small factories pei
cent on his invested capital. To-day
it takes little over one and one-han
cents on each pound of cloth to give
him the same return; and therefore
| he takes less than one-half the amount
out of what he produces to-day in the
large concerns than he did in 1881
with the small concerns. Since thai
year prices have greatly fallen, wages
have risen more than so per cent, an(
pauperism has been greatly reduced.